Midterm Campaigns Feature Record Use of Profanity and Personal Attacks

The 2026 midterm election cycle has been defined by frequent use of profanity, personal insults, and threatening language from candidates and leaders on both sides of the aisle. President Donald Trump used a swear word while referring to Norway during a recent rally and called a reporter’s appearance disgusting in a press interaction. In Maine, Senate candidate Troy Jackson told incumbent Susan Collins to shut up. In Illinois, a campaign ad for Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton used a profanity to describe Trump.

Local politics have mirrored this national trend. Matthew Bianchini, mayor of Pemberton Township, New Jersey, recently charged at a constituent during a town meeting while threatening violence. A 2025 Gallup poll found that more than 60% of Americans believe both Democrats and Republicans need to reduce their rhetoric. The poll also links this dangerous language to political violence, a concern raised after the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year and the attempts on Trump’s life.

Ted Miller, a teaching professor of history at Northeastern University, notes that political decency has never followed a straight line. He points to the 1820s as a prior era of intense division. In the 1828 election, Andrew Jackson’s allies accused John Quincy Adams of corruption, suggesting Adams had offered an American woman to the Russian czar. Adams supporters countered by portraying Jackson as a violent duelist. Jackson had previously claimed Adams secured the presidency in 1824 through a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay.

Miller argues that the last 40 years have normalized combative rhetoric. In the 1980s and 1990s, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich shifted political culture toward character assassination. After the 1993 suicide of Vincent Foster, a White House deputy lawyer, Gingrich and other Republicans publicly questioned the findings despite investigations concluding it was a suicide. Miller describes this period as one lacking high civility, coinciding with the rise of provocative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern.

Modern advertising has amplified these tactics. Koen Pauwels, a distinguished professor of marketing at Northeastern, recalled being surprised by the negativity of American political ads when he first encountered them in 2000. He notes that candidates often focus on attacking opponents rather than defending their own policies. In late October, Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy aired an ad featuring his opponent Amy Acton’s mother questioning her daughter’s honesty. The two women have been estranged since Acton’s stepfather was charged with raping Acton when she was 12. He fled the state, never stood trial, and died in 2004. The ad has since been removed.

Yakov Bart, a research professor of marketing at Northeastern, called the Ramaswamy ad reprehensible and a violation of moral standards. Pauwels explains that two-party systems encourage affective polarization, or deep distrust of the opposing party. In a multi-party system, candidates spend less time attacking rivals and more time discussing their own programs. The current campaign season on Tuesday will test whether voters respond to or reject this heightened level of public conflict.